You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
gristlabs_grist-core/app/server/lib/GranularAccess.ts

1149 lines
50 KiB

import { MixedPermissionSet, PartialPermissionSet, PermissionSet, TablePermissionSet } from 'app/common/ACLPermissions';
import { makePartialPermissions, mergePartialPermissions, mergePermissions } from 'app/common/ACLPermissions';
import { emptyPermissionSet, toMixed } from 'app/common/ACLPermissions';
import { ACLRuleCollection } from 'app/common/ACLRuleCollection';
import { ActionGroup } from 'app/common/ActionGroup';
import { createEmptyActionSummary } from 'app/common/ActionSummary';
import { Query } from 'app/common/ActiveDocAPI';
import { ApiError } from 'app/common/ApiError';
import { AsyncCreate } from 'app/common/AsyncCreate';
import { AddRecord, BulkAddRecord, BulkColValues, BulkRemoveRecord, BulkUpdateRecord } from 'app/common/DocActions';
import { RemoveRecord, ReplaceTableData, UpdateRecord } from 'app/common/DocActions';
import { CellValue, ColValues, DocAction, getTableId, isSchemaAction } from 'app/common/DocActions';
import { TableDataAction, UserAction } from 'app/common/DocActions';
import { DocData } from 'app/common/DocData';
import { ErrorWithCode } from 'app/common/ErrorWithCode';
import { AclMatchInput, InfoView } from 'app/common/GranularAccessClause';
import { RuleSet, UserInfo } from 'app/common/GranularAccessClause';
import { getSetMapValue, isObject } from 'app/common/gutil';
import { canView } from 'app/common/roles';
import { compileAclFormula } from 'app/server/lib/ACLFormula';
(core) support adding user characteristic tables for granular ACLs Summary: This is a prototype for expanding the conditions that can be used in granular ACLs. When processing ACLs, the following variables (called "characteristics") are now available in conditions: * UserID * Email * Name * Access (owners, editors, viewers) The set of variables can be expanded by adding a "characteristic" clause. This is a clause which specifies: * A tableId * The name of an existing characteristic * A colId The effect of the clause is to expand the available characteristics with all the columns in the table, with values taken from the record where there is a match between the specified characteristic and the specified column. Existing clauses are generalized somewhat to demonstrate and test the use these variables. That isn't the main point of this diff though, and I propose to leave generalizing+systematizing those clauses for a future diff. Issues I'm not dealing with here: * How clauses combine. (The scope on GranularAccessRowClause is a hack to save me worrying about that yet). * The full set of matching methods we'll allow. * Refreshing row access in clients when the tables mentioned in characteristic tables change. * Full CRUD permission control. * Default rules (part of combination). * Reporting errors in access rules. That said, with this diff it is possible to e.g. assign a City to editors by their email address or name, and have only rows for those Cities be visible in their client. Ability to modify those rows, and remain updates about them, remains under incomplete control. Test Plan: added tests Reviewers: dsagal Reviewed By: dsagal Differential Revision: https://phab.getgrist.com/D2642
4 years ago
import { getDocSessionAccess, getDocSessionUser, OptDocSession } from 'app/server/lib/DocSession';
import * as log from 'app/server/lib/log';
import { getRelatedRows, getRowIdsFromDocAction } from 'app/server/lib/RowAccess';
import cloneDeep = require('lodash/cloneDeep');
import get = require('lodash/get');
import pullAt = require('lodash/pullAt');
// tslint:disable:no-bitwise
// Actions that may be allowed for a user with nuanced access to a document, depending
// on what table they refer to.
const ACTION_WITH_TABLE_ID = new Set(['AddRecord', 'BulkAddRecord', 'UpdateRecord', 'BulkUpdateRecord',
'RemoveRecord', 'BulkRemoveRecord',
'ReplaceTableData', 'TableData',
]);
// Check if action has a tableId.
function isTableAction(a: UserAction): a is AddRecord | BulkAddRecord | UpdateRecord | BulkUpdateRecord |
RemoveRecord | BulkRemoveRecord | ReplaceTableData | TableDataAction {
return ACTION_WITH_TABLE_ID.has(String(a[0]));
}
// Actions that won't be allowed (yet) for a user with nuanced access to a document.
// A few may be innocuous, but generally I've put them in this list if there are problems
// tracking down what table the refer to, or they could allow creation/modification of a
// formula.
const SPECIAL_ACTIONS = new Set(['InitNewDoc',
'EvalCode',
'SetDisplayFormula',
'CreateViewSection',
'UpdateSummaryViewSection',
'DetachSummaryViewSection',
'GenImporterView',
'TransformAndFinishImport',
'AddColumn', 'RemoveColumn', 'RenameColumn', 'ModifyColumn',
'AddTable', 'RemoveTable', 'RenameTable',
'AddView',
'CopyFromColumn',
'AddHiddenColumn',
'RemoveViewSection'
]);
// Odd-ball actions marked as deprecated or which seem unlikely to be used.
const SURPRISING_ACTIONS = new Set([
'RemoveView',
'AddViewSection',
]);
// Actions we'll allow unconditionally for now.
const OK_ACTIONS = new Set(['Calculate', 'AddEmptyTable']);
/**
*
* Manage granular access to a document. This allows nuances other than the coarse
* owners/editors/viewers distinctions. Nuances are stored in the _grist_ACLResources
* and _grist_ACLRules tables.
*
* When the document is being modified, the object's GranularAccess is called at various
* steps of the process to check access rights. The GranularAccess object stores some
* state for an in-progress modification, to allow some caching of calculations across
* steps and clients. We expect modifications to be serialized, and the following
* pattern of calls for modifications:
*
* - canMaybeApplyUserActions(), called with UserActions for an initial access check.
* Since not all checks can be done without analyzing UserActions into DocActions,
* it is ok for this call to pass even if a more definitive test later will fail.
* - canApplyDocActions(), called when DocActions have been produced from UserActions,
* but before those DocActions have been applied to the DB. If fails, the modification
* will be abandoned.
* - appliedActions(), called when DocActions have been applied to the DB, but before
* those changes have been sent to clients.
* - filterActionGroup() and filterOutgoingDocActions() are called for each client.
* - finishedActions(), called when completely done with modification and any needed
* client notifications, whether successful or failed.
*
*/
export class GranularAccess {
// The collection of all rules, with helpful accessors.
private _ruleCollection = new ACLRuleCollection();
// Cache of PermissionInfo associated with the given docSession. It's a WeakMap, so should allow
// both to be garbage-collected once docSession is no longer in use.
private _permissionInfoMap = new WeakMap<OptDocSession, Promise<PermissionInfo>>();
private _userAttributesMap = new WeakMap<OptDocSession, UserAttributes>();
private _prevUserAttributesMap: WeakMap<OptDocSession, UserAttributes>|undefined;
// When broadcasting a sequence of DocAction[]s, this contains the state of
// affected rows for the relevant table before and after each DocAction. It
// may contain some unaffected rows as well.
private _rowSnapshots: AsyncCreate<Array<[TableDataAction, TableDataAction]>>|null = null;
// Flag tracking whether a set of actions have been applied to the database or not.
private _applied: boolean = false;
public constructor(
private _docData: DocData,
private _fetchQueryFromDB: (query: Query) => Promise<TableDataAction>,
private _recoveryMode: boolean) {
}
/**
* Update granular access from DocData.
*/
(core) support adding user characteristic tables for granular ACLs Summary: This is a prototype for expanding the conditions that can be used in granular ACLs. When processing ACLs, the following variables (called "characteristics") are now available in conditions: * UserID * Email * Name * Access (owners, editors, viewers) The set of variables can be expanded by adding a "characteristic" clause. This is a clause which specifies: * A tableId * The name of an existing characteristic * A colId The effect of the clause is to expand the available characteristics with all the columns in the table, with values taken from the record where there is a match between the specified characteristic and the specified column. Existing clauses are generalized somewhat to demonstrate and test the use these variables. That isn't the main point of this diff though, and I propose to leave generalizing+systematizing those clauses for a future diff. Issues I'm not dealing with here: * How clauses combine. (The scope on GranularAccessRowClause is a hack to save me worrying about that yet). * The full set of matching methods we'll allow. * Refreshing row access in clients when the tables mentioned in characteristic tables change. * Full CRUD permission control. * Default rules (part of combination). * Reporting errors in access rules. That said, with this diff it is possible to e.g. assign a City to editors by their email address or name, and have only rows for those Cities be visible in their client. Ability to modify those rows, and remain updates about them, remains under incomplete control. Test Plan: added tests Reviewers: dsagal Reviewed By: dsagal Differential Revision: https://phab.getgrist.com/D2642
4 years ago
public async update() {
await this._ruleCollection.update(this._docData, {log, compile: compileAclFormula});
// Also clear the per-docSession cache of rule evaluations and user attributes.
this._permissionInfoMap = new WeakMap();
this._userAttributesMap = new WeakMap();
}
/**
* Check whether user can carry out query.
*/
public hasQueryAccess(docSession: OptDocSession, query: Query) {
return this.hasTableAccess(docSession, query.tableId);
}
/**
* Check whether user has any access to table.
*/
public async hasTableAccess(docSession: OptDocSession, tableId: string) {
const pset = await this.getTableAccess(docSession, tableId);
return pset.read !== 'deny';
}
/**
* Called after UserAction[]s have been applied in the sandbox, and DocAction[]s have been
* computed, but before we have committed those DocAction[]s to the database. If this
* throws an exception, the sandbox changes will be reverted.
*/
public async canApplyDocActions(docSession: OptDocSession, docActions: DocAction[], undo: DocAction[]) {
this._applied = false;
if (this._ruleCollection.haveRules()) {
this._prepareRowSnapshots(docActions, undo);
await Promise.all(
docActions.map((action, idx) => this._checkIncomingDocAction(docSession, action, idx)));
}
if (this._recoveryMode) {
// Don't do any further checking in recovery mode.
return;
}
// If the actions change any rules, verify that we'll be able to handle the changed rules. If
// they are to cause an error, reject the action to avoid forcing user into recovery mode.
if (docActions.some(docAction => ['_grist_ACLRules', '_grist_ACLResources'].includes(getTableId(docAction)))) {
// Create a tmpDocData with just the tables we care about, then update docActions to it.
const tmpDocData: DocData = new DocData(
(tableId) => { throw new Error("Unexpected DocData fetch"); }, {
_grist_Tables: this._docData.getTable('_grist_Tables')!.getTableDataAction(),
_grist_Tables_column: this._docData.getTable('_grist_Tables_column')!.getTableDataAction(),
_grist_ACLResources: this._docData.getTable('_grist_ACLResources')!.getTableDataAction(),
_grist_ACLRules: this._docData.getTable('_grist_ACLRules')!.getTableDataAction(),
});
for (const da of docActions) {
tmpDocData.receiveAction(da);
}
// Use the post-actions data to process the rules collection, and throw error if that fails.
const ruleCollection = new ACLRuleCollection();
await ruleCollection.update(tmpDocData, {log, compile: compileAclFormula});
if (ruleCollection.ruleError) {
throw new ApiError(ruleCollection.ruleError.message, 400);
}
try {
ruleCollection.checkDocEntities(tmpDocData);
} catch (err) {
throw new ApiError(err.message, 400);
}
}
}
/**
* This should be called after each action bundle has been applied to the database,
* but before the actions are broadcast to clients. It will set us up to be able
* to efficiently filter those broadcasts.
*
* We expect actions bundles for a document to be applied+broadcast serially (the
* broadcasts can be parallelized, but should complete before moving on to further
* document mutation).
*/
public async appliedActions(docActions: DocAction[], undo: DocAction[]) {
this._applied = true;
// If there is a rule change, redo from scratch for now.
// TODO: this is placeholder code. Should deal with connected clients.
if (docActions.some(docAction => getTableId(docAction) === '_grist_ACLRules' ||
getTableId(docAction) === '_grist_Resources')) {
await this.update();
return;
}
if (!this._ruleCollection.haveRules()) { return; }
// If there is a schema change, redo from scratch for now.
// TODO: this is placeholder code. Should deal with connected clients.
if (docActions.some(docAction => isSchemaAction(docAction))) {
await this.update();
return;
}
// Check if a table that affects user attributes has changed. If so, put current
// attributes aside for later comparison, and clear caches.
const attrs = new Set([...this._ruleCollection.getUserAttributeRules().values()].map(r => r.tableId));
if (docActions.some(docAction => attrs.has(getTableId(docAction)))) {
this._prevUserAttributesMap = this._userAttributesMap;
this._permissionInfoMap = new WeakMap();
this._userAttributesMap = new WeakMap();
return;
}
}
/**
* This should be called once an action bundle has been broadcast to all clients.
* It will clean up any temporary state cached for filtering those broadcasts.
*/
public async finishedActions() {
this._applied = false;
if (this._rowSnapshots) { this._rowSnapshots.clear(); }
this._rowSnapshots = null;
this._prevUserAttributesMap = undefined;
}
/**
* Filter DocActions to be sent to a client.
*/
public async filterOutgoingDocActions(docSession: OptDocSession, docActions: DocAction[]): Promise<DocAction[]> {
await this._checkUserAttributes(docSession);
const actions = await Promise.all(
docActions.map((action, idx) => this._pruneOutgoingDocAction(docSession, action, idx)));
return ([] as DocAction[]).concat(...actions);
}
/**
* Filter an ActionGroup to be sent to a client.
*/
public async filterActionGroup(docSession: OptDocSession, actionGroup: ActionGroup): Promise<ActionGroup> {
if (await this.allowActionGroup(docSession, actionGroup)) { return actionGroup; }
// For now, if there's any nuance at all, suppress the summary and description.
// TODO: create an empty action summary, to be sure not to leak anything important.
const result: ActionGroup = { ...actionGroup };
result.actionSummary = createEmptyActionSummary();
result.desc = '';
return result;
}
/**
* Check whether an ActionGroup can be sent to the client. TODO: in future, we'll want
* to filter acceptible parts of ActionGroup, rather than denying entirely.
*/
public async allowActionGroup(docSession: OptDocSession, actionGroup: ActionGroup): Promise<boolean> {
return this.canReadEverything(docSession);
}
/**
* Check if user may be able to apply a list of actions. If it fails, the user cannot
* apply the actions. If it succeeds, the actions will need examination in more detail.
* TODO: not smart about intermediate states, if there is a table or column rename it will
* have trouble, and might forbid something that should be allowed.
*/
public async canMaybeApplyUserActions(docSession: OptDocSession, actions: UserAction[]): Promise<boolean> {
for (const action of actions) {
if (!await this.canMaybeApplyUserAction(docSession, action)) { return false; }
}
return true;
}
/**
* Check if user can apply a given action to the document.
*/
public async canMaybeApplyUserAction(docSession: OptDocSession, a: UserAction|DocAction): Promise<boolean> {
const name = a[0] as string;
if (OK_ACTIONS.has(name)) { return true; }
if (SPECIAL_ACTIONS.has(name)) {
return !this.hasNuancedAccess(docSession);
}
if (SURPRISING_ACTIONS.has(name)) {
return this.hasFullAccess(docSession);
}
if (a[0] === 'ApplyUndoActions') {
return this.canMaybeApplyUserActions(docSession, a[1] as UserAction[]);
} else if (a[0] === 'ApplyDocActions') {
return this.canMaybeApplyUserActions(docSession, a[1] as UserAction[]);
} else if (isTableAction(a)) {
const tableId = getTableId(a);
// If there are any access control nuances, deny _grist_* tables.
// TODO: this is very crude, loosen this up appropriately.
if (tableId.startsWith('_grist_')) {
return !this.hasNuancedAccess(docSession);
}
const tableAccess = await this.getTableAccess(docSession, tableId);
const accessFn = getAccessForActionType(a);
const access = accessFn(tableAccess);
// if access is mixed, leave this to be checked in detail later.
return access === 'allow' || access === 'mixed' || access === 'mixedColumns';
}
return false;
}
/**
* Check whether access is simple, or there are granular nuances that need to be
* worked through. Currently if there are no owner-only tables, then everyone's
* access is simple and without nuance.
*/
public hasNuancedAccess(docSession: OptDocSession): boolean {
if (!this._ruleCollection.haveRules()) { return false; }
return !this.hasFullAccess(docSession);
}
/**
* Check whether user can read everything in document.
*/
public async canReadEverything(docSession: OptDocSession): Promise<boolean> {
const permInfo = await this._getAccess(docSession);
return permInfo.getFullAccess().read === 'allow';
}
/**
* Check whether user has full access to the document. Currently that is interpreted
* as equivalent owner-level access to the document.
* TODO: uses of this method should be checked to see if they can be fleshed out
* now we have more of the ACL implementation done.
*/
public hasFullAccess(docSession: OptDocSession): boolean {
return this.isOwner(docSession);
}
/**
* Check whether user has owner-level access to the document.
*/
public isOwner(docSession: OptDocSession): boolean {
const access = getDocSessionAccess(docSession);
return access === 'owners';
}
/**
* Check for view access to the document. For most code paths, a request or message
* won't even be considered if there isn't view access, but there's no harm in double
* checking.
*/
public hasViewAccess(docSession: OptDocSession): boolean {
const access = getDocSessionAccess(docSession);
return canView(access);
}
/**
*
* If the user does not have access to the full document, we need to filter out
* parts of the document metadata. For simplicity, we overwrite rather than
* filter for now, so that the overall structure remains consistent. We overwrite:
*
* - names, textual ids, formulas, and other textual options
* - foreign keys linking columns/views/sections back to a forbidden table
*
* On the client, a page with a blank name will be marked gracefully as unavailable.
*
* Some information leaks, for example the existence of private tables and how
* many columns they had, and something of the relationships between them. Long term,
* it could be better to zap rows entirely, and do the work of cleaning up any cross
* references to them.
*
*/
public async filterMetaTables(docSession: OptDocSession,
tables: {[key: string]: TableDataAction}): Promise<{[key: string]: TableDataAction}> {
// If user has right to read everything, return immediately.
if (await this.canReadEverything(docSession)) { return tables; }
// If we are going to modify metadata, make a copy.
tables = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(tables));
// Collect a list of all tables (by tableRef) to which the user has no access.
const censoredTables: Set<number> = new Set();
// Collect a list of censored columns (by "<tableRef> <colId>").
const columnCode = (tableRef: number, colId: string) => `${tableRef} ${colId}`;
const censoredColumnCodes: Set<string> = new Set();
const permInfo = await this._getAccess(docSession);
for (const rec of this._docData.getTable('_grist_Tables')!.getRecords()) {
const tableId = rec.tableId as string;
const tableRef = rec.id;
const tableAccess = permInfo.getTableAccess(tableId);
if (tableAccess.read === 'deny') {
censoredTables.add(tableRef);
}
// TODO If some columns are allowed and the rest (*) are denied, we need to be able to
// censor all columns outside a set.
for (const ruleSet of this._ruleCollection.getAllColumnRuleSets(tableId)) {
if (Array.isArray(ruleSet.colIds)) {
for (const colId of ruleSet.colIds) {
if (permInfo.getColumnAccess(tableId, colId).read === 'deny') {
censoredColumnCodes.add(columnCode(tableRef, colId));
}
}
}
}
}
// Collect a list of all sections and views containing a table to which the user has no access.
const censoredSections: Set<number> = new Set();
const censoredViews: Set<number> = new Set();
for (const section of this._docData.getTable('_grist_Views_section')?.getRecords() || []) {
if (!censoredTables.has(section.tableRef as number)) { continue; }
if (section.parentId) { censoredViews.add(section.parentId as number); }
censoredSections.add(section.id);
}
// Collect a list of all columns from tables to which the user has no access.
const censoredColumns: Set<number> = new Set();
for (const column of this._docData.getTable('_grist_Tables_column')?.getRecords() || []) {
if (censoredTables.has(column.parentId as number) ||
censoredColumnCodes.has(columnCode(column.parentId as number, column.colId as string))) {
censoredColumns.add(column.id);
}
}
// Collect a list of all fields from sections to which the user has no access.
const censoredFields: Set<number> = new Set();
for (const field of this._docData.getTable('_grist_Views_section_field')?.getRecords() || []) {
if (!censoredSections.has(field.parentId as number) &&
!censoredColumns.has(field.colRef as number)) { continue; }
censoredFields.add(field.id);
}
// Clear the tableId for any tables the user does not have access to. This is just
// to keep the name of the table private, in case its name itself is sensitive.
// TODO: tableId may appear elsewhere, such as in _grist_ACLResources - user with
// nuanced rights probably should not receive that table.
this._censor(tables._grist_Tables, censoredTables, (idx, cols) => {
cols.tableId[idx] = '';
});
// Clear the name of private views, in case the name itself is sensitive.
this._censor(tables._grist_Views, censoredViews, (idx, cols) => {
cols.name[idx] = '';
});
// Clear the title of private sections, and break the connection with the private
// table as extra grit in the way of snooping.
this._censor(tables._grist_Views_section, censoredSections, (idx, cols) => {
cols.title[idx] = '';
cols.tableRef[idx] = 0;
});
// Clear text metadata from private columns, and break the connection with the
// private table.
this._censor(tables._grist_Tables_column, censoredColumns, (idx, cols) => {
cols.label[idx] = cols.colId[idx] = '';
cols.widgetOptions[idx] = cols.formula[idx] = '';
cols.type[idx] = 'Any';
cols.parentId[idx] = 0;
});
// Clear text metadata from private fields, and break the connection with the
// private table.
this._censor(tables._grist_Views_section_field, censoredFields, (idx, cols) => {
cols.widgetOptions[idx] = cols.filter[idx] = '';
cols.parentId[idx] = 0;
});
return tables;
}
/**
* Distill the clauses for the given session and table, to figure out the
* access level and any row-level access functions needed.
*/
public async getTableAccess(docSession: OptDocSession, tableId: string): Promise<TablePermissionSet> {
return (await this._getAccess(docSession)).getTableAccess(tableId);
}
/**
* Modify table data in place, removing any rows or columns to which access
* is not granted.
*/
public async filterData(docSession: OptDocSession, data: TableDataAction) {
const permInfo = await this._getAccess(docSession);
const tableId = getTableId(data);
if (permInfo.getTableAccess(tableId).read === 'mixed') {
await this._filterRowsAndCells(docSession, data, data, data, canRead);
}
// Filter columns, omitting any to which the user has no access, regardless of rows.
this._filterColumns(data[3], (colId) => permInfo.getColumnAccess(tableId, colId).read !== 'deny');
}
/**
* Strip out any denied columns from an action. Returns null if nothing is left.
* accessFn may throw if denials are fatal.
*/
private _pruneColumns(a: DocAction, permInfo: PermissionInfo, tableId: string,
accessFn: AccessFn): DocAction|null {
if (a[0] === 'RemoveRecord' || a[0] === 'BulkRemoveRecord') {
return a;
} else if (a[0] === 'AddRecord' || a[0] === 'BulkAddRecord' || a[0] === 'UpdateRecord' ||
a[0] === 'BulkUpdateRecord' || a[0] === 'ReplaceTableData' || a[0] === 'TableData') {
const na = cloneDeep(a);
this._filterColumns(na[3], (colId) => accessFn(permInfo.getColumnAccess(tableId, colId)) !== 'deny');
if (Object.keys(na[3]).length === 0) { return null; }
return na;
} else if (a[0] === 'AddColumn' || a[0] === 'RemoveColumn' || a[0] === 'RenameColumn' ||
a[0] === 'ModifyColumn') {
const na = cloneDeep(a);
const colId: string = na[2];
if (accessFn(permInfo.getColumnAccess(tableId, colId)) === 'deny') { return null; }
throw new ErrorWithCode('NEED_RELOAD', 'document needs reload');
} else {
// Remaining cases of AddTable, RemoveTable, RenameTable should have
// been handled at the table level.
}
// TODO: handle access to changes in metadata (trigger a reload at least, if
// all else fails).
return a;
}
/**
* Strip out any denied rows from an action. The action may be rewritten if rows
* become allowed or denied during the action. An action to add newly-allowed
* rows may be included, or an action to remove newly-forbidden rows. The result
* is a list rather than a single action. It may be the empty list.
*/
private async _pruneRows(docSession: OptDocSession, a: DocAction, idx: number): Promise<DocAction[]> {
// For the moment, only deal with Record-related actions.
// TODO: process table/column schema changes more carefully.
if (isSchemaAction(a)) { return [a]; }
// Get before/after state for this action. Broadcasts to other users can make use of the
// same state, so we share it (and only compute it if needed).
if (!this._rowSnapshots) { throw new Error('Actions not available'); }
const allRowSnapshots = await this._rowSnapshots.get();
const [rowsBefore, rowsAfter] = allRowSnapshots[idx];
// Figure out which rows were forbidden to this session before this action vs
// after this action. We need to know both so that we can infer the state of the
// client and send the correct change.
const ids = new Set(getRowIdsFromDocAction(a));
const forbiddenBefores = new Set(await this._getForbiddenRows(docSession, rowsBefore, ids));
const forbiddenAfters = new Set(await this._getForbiddenRows(docSession, rowsAfter, ids));
/**
* For rows forbidden before and after: just remove them.
* For rows allowed before and after: just leave them unchanged.
* For rows that were allowed before and are now forbidden:
* - strip them from the current action.
* - add a BulkRemoveRecord for them.
* For rows that were forbidden before and are now allowed:
* - remove them from the current action.
* - add a BulkAddRecord for them.
*/
const removals = new Set<number>(); // rows to remove from current action.
const forceAdds = new Set<number>(); // rows to add, that were previously stripped.
const forceRemoves = new Set<number>(); // rows to remove, that have become forbidden.
for (const id of ids) {
const forbiddenBefore = forbiddenBefores.has(id);
const forbiddenAfter = forbiddenAfters.has(id);
if (!forbiddenBefore && !forbiddenAfter) { continue; }
if (forbiddenBefore && forbiddenAfter) {
removals.add(id);
continue;
}
// If we reach here, then access right to the row changed and we have fancy footwork to do.
if (forbiddenBefore) {
// The row was forbidden and now is allowed. That's trivial if the row was just added.
if (a[0] === 'AddRecord' || a[0] === 'BulkAddRecord' ||
a[0] === 'ReplaceTableData' || a[0] === 'TableData') {
continue;
}
// Otherwise, strip the row from the current action.
removals.add(id);
if (a[0] === 'UpdateRecord' || a[0] === 'BulkUpdateRecord') {
// For updates, we need to send the entire row as an add, since the client
// doesn't know anything about it yet.
forceAdds.add(id);
} else {
// Remaining cases are [Bulk]RemoveRecord.
}
} else {
// The row was allowed and now is forbidden.
// If the action is a removal, that is just right.
if (a[0] === 'RemoveRecord' || a[0] === 'BulkRemoveRecord') { continue; }
// Otherwise, strip the row from the current action.
removals.add(id);
if (a[0] === 'UpdateRecord' || a[0] === 'BulkUpdateRecord') {
// For updates, we need to remove the entire row.
forceRemoves.add(id);
} else {
// Remaining cases are add-like actions.
}
}
}
// Execute our cunning plans for DocAction revisions.
const revisedDocActions = [
this._makeAdditions(rowsAfter, forceAdds),
this._removeRows(a, removals),
this._makeRemovals(rowsAfter, forceRemoves),
].filter(isObject);
// Return the results, also applying any cell-level access control.
for (const docAction of revisedDocActions) {
await this._filterRowsAndCells(docSession, rowsAfter, rowsAfter, docAction, canRead);
}
return revisedDocActions;
}
/**
* Like _pruneRows, but fails immediately if access to any row is forbidden.
* The accessFn supplied should throw an error on denial.
*/
private async _checkRows(docSession: OptDocSession, a: DocAction, idx: number,
accessFn: AccessFn): Promise<void> {
// For the moment, only deal with Record-related actions.
// TODO: process table/column schema changes more carefully.
if (isSchemaAction(a)) { return; }
if (!this._rowSnapshots) { throw new Error('Logic error: actions not available'); }
const allRowSnapshots = await this._rowSnapshots.get();
const [rowsBefore, rowsAfter] = allRowSnapshots[idx];
await this._filterRowsAndCells(docSession, rowsBefore, rowsAfter, a, accessFn);
}
/**
* Modify action in place, scrubbing any rows and cells to which access is not granted.
*/
private async _filterRowsAndCells(docSession: OptDocSession, rowsBefore: TableDataAction, rowsAfter: TableDataAction,
docAction: DocAction, accessFn: AccessFn) {
if (docAction && isSchemaAction(docAction)) {
// TODO should filter out metadata about an unavailable column, probably.
return [];
}
const rec = new RecordView(rowsBefore, undefined);
const newRec = new RecordView(rowsAfter, undefined);
const input: AclMatchInput = {user: await this._getUser(docSession), rec, newRec};
const [, tableId, , colValues] = docAction;
const rowIds = getRowIdsFromDocAction(docAction);
const toRemove: number[] = [];
let censorAt: (colId: string, idx: number) => void;
if (colValues === undefined) {
censorAt = () => 1;
} else if (Array.isArray(docAction[2])) {
censorAt = (colId, idx) => (colValues as BulkColValues)[colId][idx] = 'CENSORED'; // TODO Pick a suitable value
} else {
censorAt = (colId) => (colValues as ColValues)[colId] = 'CENSORED'; // TODO Pick a suitable value
}
// These map an index of a row in docAction to its index in rowsBefore and in rowsAfter.
let getRecIndex: (idx: number) => number|undefined = (idx) => idx;
let getNewRecIndex: (idx: number) => number|undefined = (idx) => idx;
if (docAction !== rowsBefore) {
const recIndexes = new Map(rowsBefore[2].map((rowId, idx) => [rowId, idx]));
getRecIndex = (idx) => recIndexes.get(rowIds[idx]);
const newRecIndexes = new Map(rowsAfter[2].map((rowId, idx) => [rowId, idx]));
getNewRecIndex = (idx) => newRecIndexes.get(rowIds[idx]);
}
for (let idx = 0; idx < rowIds.length; idx++) {
rec.index = getRecIndex(idx);
newRec.index = getNewRecIndex(idx);
const rowPermInfo = new PermissionInfo(this._ruleCollection, input);
// getTableAccess() evaluates all column rules for THIS record. So it's really rowAccess.
const rowAccess = rowPermInfo.getTableAccess(tableId);
const access = accessFn(rowAccess);
if (access === 'deny') {
toRemove.push(idx);
} else if (access !== 'allow' && colValues) {
// Go over column rules.
for (const colId of Object.keys(colValues)) {
const colAccess = rowPermInfo.getColumnAccess(tableId, colId);
if (accessFn(colAccess) === 'deny') {
censorAt(colId, idx);
}
}
}
}
if (toRemove.length > 0) {
if (rowsBefore === docAction) {
this._removeRowsAt(toRemove, rowsBefore[2], rowsBefore[3]);
} else {
// Artificially introduced removals are ok, otherwise this is suspect.
if (docAction[0] !== 'RemoveRecord' && docAction[0] !== 'BulkRemoveRecord') {
throw new Error('Unexpected row removal');
}
}
}
}
// Compute which of the row ids supplied are for rows forbidden for this session.
private async _getForbiddenRows(docSession: OptDocSession, data: TableDataAction, ids: Set<number>):
Promise<number[]> {
const rec = new RecordView(data, undefined);
const input: AclMatchInput = {user: await this._getUser(docSession), rec};
const [, tableId, rowIds] = data;
const toRemove: number[] = [];
for (let idx = 0; idx < rowIds.length; idx++) {
rec.index = idx;
if (!ids.has(rowIds[idx])) { continue; }
const rowPermInfo = new PermissionInfo(this._ruleCollection, input);
// getTableAccess() evaluates all column rules for THIS record. So it's really rowAccess.
const rowAccess = rowPermInfo.getTableAccess(tableId);
if (canRead(rowAccess) === 'deny') {
toRemove.push(rowIds[idx]);
}
}
return toRemove;
}
/**
* Removes the toRemove rows (indexes, not row ids) from the rowIds list and from
* the colValues structure.
*/
private _removeRowsAt(toRemove: number[], rowIds: number[], colValues: BulkColValues|undefined) {
if (toRemove.length > 0) {
pullAt(rowIds, toRemove);
if (colValues) {
for (const values of Object.values(colValues)) {
pullAt(values, toRemove);
}
}
}
}
/**
* Remove columns from a ColumnValues parameter of certain DocActions, using a predicate for
* which columns to keep.
*/
private _filterColumns(data: BulkColValues|ColValues, shouldInclude: (colId: string) => boolean) {
for (const colId of Object.keys(data)) {
if (!shouldInclude(colId)) {
delete data[colId];
}
}
}
/**
* Modify the given TableDataAction in place by calling the supplied operation with
* the indexes of any ids supplied and the columns in that TableDataAction.
*/
private _censor(table: TableDataAction, ids: Set<number>,
op: (idx: number, cols: BulkColValues) => unknown) {
const availableIds = table[2];
const cols = table[3];
for (let idx = 0; idx < availableIds.length; idx++) {
if (ids.has(availableIds[idx])) { op(idx, cols); }
}
}
(core) support adding user characteristic tables for granular ACLs Summary: This is a prototype for expanding the conditions that can be used in granular ACLs. When processing ACLs, the following variables (called "characteristics") are now available in conditions: * UserID * Email * Name * Access (owners, editors, viewers) The set of variables can be expanded by adding a "characteristic" clause. This is a clause which specifies: * A tableId * The name of an existing characteristic * A colId The effect of the clause is to expand the available characteristics with all the columns in the table, with values taken from the record where there is a match between the specified characteristic and the specified column. Existing clauses are generalized somewhat to demonstrate and test the use these variables. That isn't the main point of this diff though, and I propose to leave generalizing+systematizing those clauses for a future diff. Issues I'm not dealing with here: * How clauses combine. (The scope on GranularAccessRowClause is a hack to save me worrying about that yet). * The full set of matching methods we'll allow. * Refreshing row access in clients when the tables mentioned in characteristic tables change. * Full CRUD permission control. * Default rules (part of combination). * Reporting errors in access rules. That said, with this diff it is possible to e.g. assign a City to editors by their email address or name, and have only rows for those Cities be visible in their client. Ability to modify those rows, and remain updates about them, remains under incomplete control. Test Plan: added tests Reviewers: dsagal Reviewed By: dsagal Differential Revision: https://phab.getgrist.com/D2642
4 years ago
/**
* Get PermissionInfo for the user represented by the given docSession. The returned object
* allows evaluating access level as far as possible without considering specific records.
*
* The result is cached in a WeakMap, and PermissionInfo does its own caching, so multiple calls
* to this._getAccess(docSession).someMethod() will reuse already-evaluated results.
*/
private async _getAccess(docSession: OptDocSession): Promise<PermissionInfo> {
// TODO The intent of caching is to avoid duplicating rule evaluations while processing a
// single request. Caching based on docSession is riskier since those persist across requests.
return getSetMapValue(this._permissionInfoMap as Map<OptDocSession, Promise<PermissionInfo>>, docSession,
async () => new PermissionInfo(this._ruleCollection, {user: await this._getUser(docSession)}));
}
private _getUserAttributes(docSession: OptDocSession): UserAttributes {
// TODO Same caching intent and caveat as for _getAccess
return getSetMapValue(this._userAttributesMap as Map<OptDocSession, UserAttributes>, docSession,
() => new UserAttributes());
}
/**
* Check whether user attributes have changed. If so, prompt client
* to reload the document, since we aren't sophisticated enough to
* figure out the changes to send.
*/
private async _checkUserAttributes(docSession: OptDocSession) {
if (!this._prevUserAttributesMap) { return; }
const userAttrBefore = this._prevUserAttributesMap.get(docSession);
if (!userAttrBefore) { return; }
await this._getAccess(docSession); // Makes sure user attrs have actually been computed.
const userAttrAfter = this._getUserAttributes(docSession);
for (const [tableId, rec] of Object.entries(userAttrAfter.rows)) {
const prev = userAttrBefore.rows[tableId];
if (!prev || JSON.stringify(prev.toJSON()) !== JSON.stringify(rec.toJSON())) {
throw new ErrorWithCode('NEED_RELOAD', 'document needs reload, user attributes changed');
}
}
(core) support adding user characteristic tables for granular ACLs Summary: This is a prototype for expanding the conditions that can be used in granular ACLs. When processing ACLs, the following variables (called "characteristics") are now available in conditions: * UserID * Email * Name * Access (owners, editors, viewers) The set of variables can be expanded by adding a "characteristic" clause. This is a clause which specifies: * A tableId * The name of an existing characteristic * A colId The effect of the clause is to expand the available characteristics with all the columns in the table, with values taken from the record where there is a match between the specified characteristic and the specified column. Existing clauses are generalized somewhat to demonstrate and test the use these variables. That isn't the main point of this diff though, and I propose to leave generalizing+systematizing those clauses for a future diff. Issues I'm not dealing with here: * How clauses combine. (The scope on GranularAccessRowClause is a hack to save me worrying about that yet). * The full set of matching methods we'll allow. * Refreshing row access in clients when the tables mentioned in characteristic tables change. * Full CRUD permission control. * Default rules (part of combination). * Reporting errors in access rules. That said, with this diff it is possible to e.g. assign a City to editors by their email address or name, and have only rows for those Cities be visible in their client. Ability to modify those rows, and remain updates about them, remains under incomplete control. Test Plan: added tests Reviewers: dsagal Reviewed By: dsagal Differential Revision: https://phab.getgrist.com/D2642
4 years ago
}
/**
* Construct the UserInfo needed for evaluating rules. This also enriches the user with values
* created by user-attribute rules.
*/
private async _getUser(docSession: OptDocSession): Promise<UserInfo> {
const access = getDocSessionAccess(docSession);
const fullUser = getDocSessionUser(docSession);
const attrs = this._getUserAttributes(docSession);
const user: UserInfo = {};
user.Access = access;
user.UserID = fullUser?.id || null;
user.Email = fullUser?.email || null;
user.Name = fullUser?.name || null;
// If viewed from a websocket, collect any link parameters included.
// TODO: could also get this from rest api access, just via a different route.
user.Link = docSession.authorizer?.getLinkParameters() || {};
// Include origin info if accessed via the rest api.
// TODO: could also get this for websocket access, just via a different route.
user.Origin = docSession.req?.get('origin') || null;
if (this._ruleCollection.ruleError && !this._recoveryMode) {
// It is important to signal that the doc is in an unexpected state,
// and prevent it opening.
throw this._ruleCollection.ruleError;
}
for (const clause of this._ruleCollection.getUserAttributeRules().values()) {
if (clause.name in user) {
log.warn(`User attribute ${clause.name} ignored; conflicts with an existing one`);
continue;
}
if (attrs.rows[clause.name]) {
user[clause.name] = attrs.rows[clause.name];
continue;
}
let rec = new EmptyRecordView();
let rows: TableDataAction|undefined;
try {
// Use lodash's get() that supports paths, e.g. charId of 'a.b' would look up `user.a.b`.
// TODO: add indexes to db.
rows = await this._fetchQueryFromDB({
tableId: clause.tableId,
filters: { [clause.lookupColId]: [get(user, clause.charId)] }
});
} catch (e) {
log.warn(`User attribute ${clause.name} failed`, e);
}
if (rows && rows[2].length > 0) { rec = new RecordView(rows, 0); }
user[clause.name] = rec;
attrs.rows[clause.name] = rec;
}
return user;
}
/**
* Remove a set of rows from a DocAction. If the DocAction ends up empty, null is returned.
* If the DocAction needs modification, it is copied first - the original is never
* changed.
*/
private _removeRows(a: DocAction, rowIds: Set<number>): DocAction|null {
// If there are no rows, there's nothing to do.
if (isSchemaAction(a)) { return a; }
if (a[0] === 'AddRecord' || a[0] === 'UpdateRecord' || a[0] === 'RemoveRecord') {
return rowIds.has(a[2]) ? null : a;
}
const na = cloneDeep(a);
const [, , oldIds, bulkColValues] = na;
const mask = oldIds.map((id, idx) => rowIds.has(id) && idx || -1).filter(v => v !== -1);
this._removeRowsAt(mask, oldIds, bulkColValues);
if (oldIds.length === 0) { return null; }
return na;
}
/**
* Make a BulkAddRecord for a set of rows.
*/
private _makeAdditions(data: TableDataAction, rowIds: Set<number>): BulkAddRecord|null {
if (rowIds.size === 0) { return null; }
// TODO: optimize implementation, this does an unnecessary clone.
const notAdded = data[2].filter(id => !rowIds.has(id));
const partialData = this._removeRows(data, new Set(notAdded)) as TableDataAction|null;
if (partialData === null) { return partialData; }
return ['BulkAddRecord', partialData[1], partialData[2], partialData[3]];
}
/**
* Make a BulkRemoveRecord for a set of rows.
*/
private _makeRemovals(data: TableDataAction, rowIds: Set<number>): BulkRemoveRecord|null {
if (rowIds.size === 0) { return null; }
return ['BulkRemoveRecord', getTableId(data), [...rowIds]];
}
/**
* Prepare to compute intermediate states of rows, as
* this._rowSnapshots. The computation should happen only if
* needed, which depends on the rules and actions. The computation
* uses the state of the database, and so depends on whether the
* docActions have already been applied to the database or not, as
* determined by the this._applied flag, which should never be
* changed during any possible use of this._rowSnapshots.
*/
private _prepareRowSnapshots(docActions: DocAction[], undo: DocAction[]) {
// Prepare to compute row snapshots if it turns out we need them.
// If we never need them, they will never be computed.
this._rowSnapshots = new AsyncCreate(async () => {
// For row access work, we'll need to know the state of affected rows before and
// after the actions.
// First figure out what rows in which tables are touched during the actions.
const rows = new Map(getRelatedRows(this._applied ? [...undo].reverse() : docActions));
// Populate a minimal in-memory version of the database with these rows.
const docData = new DocData(
(tableId) => this._fetchQueryFromDB({tableId, filters: {id: [...rows.get(tableId)!]}}),
null,
);
await Promise.all([...rows.keys()].map(tableId => docData.syncTable(tableId)));
if (this._applied) {
// Apply the undo actions, since the docActions have already been applied to the db.
for (const docAction of [...undo].reverse()) { docData.receiveAction(docAction); }
}
// Now step forward, storing the before and after state for the table
// involved in each action. We'll use this to compute row access changes.
// For simple changes, the rows will be just the minimal set needed.
// This could definitely be optimized. E.g. for pure table updates, these
// states could be extracted while applying undo actions, with no need for
// a forward pass. And for a series of updates to the same table, there'll
// be duplicated before/after states that could be optimized.
const rowSnapshots = new Array<[TableDataAction, TableDataAction]>();
for (const docAction of docActions) {
const tableId = getTableId(docAction);
const tableData = docData.getTable(tableId)!;
const before = cloneDeep(tableData.getTableDataAction());
docData.receiveAction(docAction);
// If table is deleted, state afterwards doesn't matter.
const after = docData.getTable(tableId) ? cloneDeep(tableData.getTableDataAction()) : before;
rowSnapshots.push([before, after]);
}
return rowSnapshots;
});
}
/**
* Cut out any rows/columns not accessible to the user. May throw a NEED_RELOAD
* exception if the information needed to achieve the desired pruning is not available.
* Returns null if the action is entirely pruned. The action passed in is never modified.
* The idx parameter is a record of which action in the bundle this action is, and can
* be used to access information in this._rowSnapshots if needed.
*/
private async _pruneOutgoingDocAction(docSession: OptDocSession, a: DocAction, idx: number): Promise<DocAction[]> {
const tableId = getTableId(a);
const permInfo = await this._getAccess(docSession);
const tableAccess = permInfo.getTableAccess(tableId);
const access = tableAccess.read;
if (access === 'deny') { return []; }
if (access === 'allow') { return [a]; }
if (access === 'mixedColumns') {
return [this._pruneColumns(a, permInfo, tableId, canRead)].filter(isObject);
}
// The remainder is the mixed condition.
const revisedDocActions = await this._pruneRows(docSession, a, idx);
const result = revisedDocActions.map(na => this._pruneColumns(na, permInfo, tableId,
canRead)).filter(isObject);
return result;
}
private async _checkIncomingDocAction(docSession: OptDocSession, a: DocAction, idx: number): Promise<void> {
const accessFn = denyIsFatal(getAccessForActionType(a));
const tableId = getTableId(a);
const permInfo = await this._getAccess(docSession);
const tableAccess = permInfo.getTableAccess(tableId);
const access = accessFn(tableAccess);
if (access === 'allow') { return; }
if (access === 'mixedColumns') {
// Somewhat abusing prune method by calling it with an access function that
// throws on denial.
this._pruneColumns(a, permInfo, tableId, accessFn);
}
// The remainder is the mixed condition.
await this._checkRows(docSession, a, idx, accessFn);
// Somewhat abusing prune method by calling it with an access function that
// throws on denial.
this._pruneColumns(a, permInfo, tableId, accessFn);
}
}
/**
* Evaluate a RuleSet on a given input (user and optionally record). If a record is needed but not
* included, the result may include permission values like 'allowSome', 'denySome'.
*/
function evaluateRule(ruleSet: RuleSet, input: AclMatchInput): PartialPermissionSet {
let pset: PartialPermissionSet = emptyPermissionSet();
for (const rule of ruleSet.body) {
try {
if (rule.matchFunc!(input)) {
pset = mergePartialPermissions(pset, rule.permissions);
}
} catch (e) {
if (e.code === 'NEED_ROW_DATA') {
pset = mergePartialPermissions(pset, makePartialPermissions(rule.permissions));
} else {
// For other errors, assume the rule is invalid, and treat as a non-match.
// TODO An appropriate user should be alerted that a clause is not being honored.
log.warn("ACLRule for %s failed: %s", ruleSet.tableId, e.message);
}
}
}
return pset;
}
/**
* Helper for evaluating rules given a particular user and optionally a record. It evaluates rules
* for a column, table, or document, with caching to avoid evaluating the same rule multiple times.
*/
class PermissionInfo {
private _ruleResults = new Map<RuleSet, MixedPermissionSet>();
// Construct a PermissionInfo for a particular input, which is a combination of user and
// optionally a record.
constructor(private _acls: ACLRuleCollection, private _input: AclMatchInput) {}
// Get permissions for "tableId:colId", defaulting to "tableId:*" and "*:*" as needed.
// If 'mixed' is returned, different rows may have different permissions. It should never return
// 'mixed' if the input includes `rec`.
public getColumnAccess(tableId: string, colId: string): MixedPermissionSet {
const ruleSet: RuleSet|undefined = this._acls.getColumnRuleSet(tableId, colId);
return ruleSet ? this._processColumnRule(ruleSet) : this._getTableDefaultAccess(tableId);
}
// Combine permissions from all rules for the given table.
// If 'mixedColumns' is returned, different columns have different permissions, but they do NOT
// depend on rows. If 'mixed' is returned, some permissions depend on rows.
public getTableAccess(tableId: string): TablePermissionSet {
const columnAccess = this._acls.getAllColumnRuleSets(tableId).map(rs => this._processColumnRule(rs));
columnAccess.push(this._getTableDefaultAccess(tableId));
return mergePermissions(columnAccess, (bits) => (
bits.every(b => b === 'allow') ? 'allow' :
bits.every(b => b === 'deny') ? 'deny' :
bits.every(b => b === 'allow' || b === 'deny') ? 'mixedColumns' :
'mixed'
));
}
// Combine permissions from all rules throughout.
// If 'mixed' is returned, then different tables, rows, or columns have different permissions.
public getFullAccess(): MixedPermissionSet {
const tableAccess = this._acls.getAllTableIds().map(tableId => this.getTableAccess(tableId));
tableAccess.push(this._getDocDefaultAccess());
return mergePermissions(tableAccess, (bits) => (
bits.every(b => b === 'allow') ? 'allow' :
bits.every(b => b === 'deny') ? 'deny' :
'mixed'
));
}
// Get permissions for "tableId:*", defaulting to "*:*" as needed.
// If 'mixed' is returned, different rows may have different permissions.
private _getTableDefaultAccess(tableId: string): MixedPermissionSet {
const ruleSet: RuleSet|undefined = this._acls.getTableDefaultRuleSet(tableId);
return ruleSet ? this._processRule(ruleSet, () => this._getDocDefaultAccess()) :
this._getDocDefaultAccess();
}
// Get permissions for "*:*".
private _getDocDefaultAccess(): MixedPermissionSet {
return this._processRule(this._acls.getDocDefaultRuleSet());
}
// Evaluate and cache the given column rule, falling back to the corresponding table default.
private _processColumnRule(ruleSet: RuleSet): MixedPermissionSet {
return this._processRule(ruleSet, () => this._getTableDefaultAccess(ruleSet.tableId));
}
// Evaluate the given rule, with the default fallback, and cache the result.
private _processRule(ruleSet: RuleSet, defaultAccess?: () => MixedPermissionSet): MixedPermissionSet {
return getSetMapValue(this._ruleResults, ruleSet, () => {
const pset = evaluateRule(ruleSet, this._input);
return toMixed(defaultAccess ? mergePartialPermissions(pset, defaultAccess()) : pset);
});
}
(core) support adding user characteristic tables for granular ACLs Summary: This is a prototype for expanding the conditions that can be used in granular ACLs. When processing ACLs, the following variables (called "characteristics") are now available in conditions: * UserID * Email * Name * Access (owners, editors, viewers) The set of variables can be expanded by adding a "characteristic" clause. This is a clause which specifies: * A tableId * The name of an existing characteristic * A colId The effect of the clause is to expand the available characteristics with all the columns in the table, with values taken from the record where there is a match between the specified characteristic and the specified column. Existing clauses are generalized somewhat to demonstrate and test the use these variables. That isn't the main point of this diff though, and I propose to leave generalizing+systematizing those clauses for a future diff. Issues I'm not dealing with here: * How clauses combine. (The scope on GranularAccessRowClause is a hack to save me worrying about that yet). * The full set of matching methods we'll allow. * Refreshing row access in clients when the tables mentioned in characteristic tables change. * Full CRUD permission control. * Default rules (part of combination). * Reporting errors in access rules. That said, with this diff it is possible to e.g. assign a City to editors by their email address or name, and have only rows for those Cities be visible in their client. Ability to modify those rows, and remain updates about them, remains under incomplete control. Test Plan: added tests Reviewers: dsagal Reviewed By: dsagal Differential Revision: https://phab.getgrist.com/D2642
4 years ago
}
/**
* A row-like view of TableDataAction, which is columnar in nature. If index value
* is undefined, acts as an EmptyRecordRow.
*/
(core) support adding user characteristic tables for granular ACLs Summary: This is a prototype for expanding the conditions that can be used in granular ACLs. When processing ACLs, the following variables (called "characteristics") are now available in conditions: * UserID * Email * Name * Access (owners, editors, viewers) The set of variables can be expanded by adding a "characteristic" clause. This is a clause which specifies: * A tableId * The name of an existing characteristic * A colId The effect of the clause is to expand the available characteristics with all the columns in the table, with values taken from the record where there is a match between the specified characteristic and the specified column. Existing clauses are generalized somewhat to demonstrate and test the use these variables. That isn't the main point of this diff though, and I propose to leave generalizing+systematizing those clauses for a future diff. Issues I'm not dealing with here: * How clauses combine. (The scope on GranularAccessRowClause is a hack to save me worrying about that yet). * The full set of matching methods we'll allow. * Refreshing row access in clients when the tables mentioned in characteristic tables change. * Full CRUD permission control. * Default rules (part of combination). * Reporting errors in access rules. That said, with this diff it is possible to e.g. assign a City to editors by their email address or name, and have only rows for those Cities be visible in their client. Ability to modify those rows, and remain updates about them, remains under incomplete control. Test Plan: added tests Reviewers: dsagal Reviewed By: dsagal Differential Revision: https://phab.getgrist.com/D2642
4 years ago
export class RecordView implements InfoView {
public constructor(public data: TableDataAction, public index: number|undefined) {
}
public get(colId: string): CellValue {
if (this.index === undefined) { return null; }
if (colId === 'id') {
return this.data[2][this.index];
}
return this.data[3][colId][this.index];
}
(core) support adding user characteristic tables for granular ACLs Summary: This is a prototype for expanding the conditions that can be used in granular ACLs. When processing ACLs, the following variables (called "characteristics") are now available in conditions: * UserID * Email * Name * Access (owners, editors, viewers) The set of variables can be expanded by adding a "characteristic" clause. This is a clause which specifies: * A tableId * The name of an existing characteristic * A colId The effect of the clause is to expand the available characteristics with all the columns in the table, with values taken from the record where there is a match between the specified characteristic and the specified column. Existing clauses are generalized somewhat to demonstrate and test the use these variables. That isn't the main point of this diff though, and I propose to leave generalizing+systematizing those clauses for a future diff. Issues I'm not dealing with here: * How clauses combine. (The scope on GranularAccessRowClause is a hack to save me worrying about that yet). * The full set of matching methods we'll allow. * Refreshing row access in clients when the tables mentioned in characteristic tables change. * Full CRUD permission control. * Default rules (part of combination). * Reporting errors in access rules. That said, with this diff it is possible to e.g. assign a City to editors by their email address or name, and have only rows for those Cities be visible in their client. Ability to modify those rows, and remain updates about them, remains under incomplete control. Test Plan: added tests Reviewers: dsagal Reviewed By: dsagal Differential Revision: https://phab.getgrist.com/D2642
4 years ago
public toJSON() {
if (this.index === undefined) { return {}; }
(core) support adding user characteristic tables for granular ACLs Summary: This is a prototype for expanding the conditions that can be used in granular ACLs. When processing ACLs, the following variables (called "characteristics") are now available in conditions: * UserID * Email * Name * Access (owners, editors, viewers) The set of variables can be expanded by adding a "characteristic" clause. This is a clause which specifies: * A tableId * The name of an existing characteristic * A colId The effect of the clause is to expand the available characteristics with all the columns in the table, with values taken from the record where there is a match between the specified characteristic and the specified column. Existing clauses are generalized somewhat to demonstrate and test the use these variables. That isn't the main point of this diff though, and I propose to leave generalizing+systematizing those clauses for a future diff. Issues I'm not dealing with here: * How clauses combine. (The scope on GranularAccessRowClause is a hack to save me worrying about that yet). * The full set of matching methods we'll allow. * Refreshing row access in clients when the tables mentioned in characteristic tables change. * Full CRUD permission control. * Default rules (part of combination). * Reporting errors in access rules. That said, with this diff it is possible to e.g. assign a City to editors by their email address or name, and have only rows for those Cities be visible in their client. Ability to modify those rows, and remain updates about them, remains under incomplete control. Test Plan: added tests Reviewers: dsagal Reviewed By: dsagal Differential Revision: https://phab.getgrist.com/D2642
4 years ago
const results: {[key: string]: any} = {};
for (const key of Object.keys(this.data[3])) {
results[key] = this.data[3][key][this.index];
}
return results;
}
}
class EmptyRecordView implements InfoView {
public get(colId: string): CellValue { return null; }
public toJSON() { return {}; }
(core) support adding user characteristic tables for granular ACLs Summary: This is a prototype for expanding the conditions that can be used in granular ACLs. When processing ACLs, the following variables (called "characteristics") are now available in conditions: * UserID * Email * Name * Access (owners, editors, viewers) The set of variables can be expanded by adding a "characteristic" clause. This is a clause which specifies: * A tableId * The name of an existing characteristic * A colId The effect of the clause is to expand the available characteristics with all the columns in the table, with values taken from the record where there is a match between the specified characteristic and the specified column. Existing clauses are generalized somewhat to demonstrate and test the use these variables. That isn't the main point of this diff though, and I propose to leave generalizing+systematizing those clauses for a future diff. Issues I'm not dealing with here: * How clauses combine. (The scope on GranularAccessRowClause is a hack to save me worrying about that yet). * The full set of matching methods we'll allow. * Refreshing row access in clients when the tables mentioned in characteristic tables change. * Full CRUD permission control. * Default rules (part of combination). * Reporting errors in access rules. That said, with this diff it is possible to e.g. assign a City to editors by their email address or name, and have only rows for those Cities be visible in their client. Ability to modify those rows, and remain updates about them, remains under incomplete control. Test Plan: added tests Reviewers: dsagal Reviewed By: dsagal Differential Revision: https://phab.getgrist.com/D2642
4 years ago
}
/**
* Cache information about user attributes.
(core) support adding user characteristic tables for granular ACLs Summary: This is a prototype for expanding the conditions that can be used in granular ACLs. When processing ACLs, the following variables (called "characteristics") are now available in conditions: * UserID * Email * Name * Access (owners, editors, viewers) The set of variables can be expanded by adding a "characteristic" clause. This is a clause which specifies: * A tableId * The name of an existing characteristic * A colId The effect of the clause is to expand the available characteristics with all the columns in the table, with values taken from the record where there is a match between the specified characteristic and the specified column. Existing clauses are generalized somewhat to demonstrate and test the use these variables. That isn't the main point of this diff though, and I propose to leave generalizing+systematizing those clauses for a future diff. Issues I'm not dealing with here: * How clauses combine. (The scope on GranularAccessRowClause is a hack to save me worrying about that yet). * The full set of matching methods we'll allow. * Refreshing row access in clients when the tables mentioned in characteristic tables change. * Full CRUD permission control. * Default rules (part of combination). * Reporting errors in access rules. That said, with this diff it is possible to e.g. assign a City to editors by their email address or name, and have only rows for those Cities be visible in their client. Ability to modify those rows, and remain updates about them, remains under incomplete control. Test Plan: added tests Reviewers: dsagal Reviewed By: dsagal Differential Revision: https://phab.getgrist.com/D2642
4 years ago
*/
class UserAttributes {
public rows: {[clauseName: string]: InfoView} = {};
}
// A function for extracting one of the create/read/update/delete/schemaEdit permissions
// from a permission set.
type AccessFn = (ps: PermissionSet<string>) => string;
// Get an AccessFn appropriate for the specific action.
// TODO: deal with ReplaceTableData, which both deletes and creates rows.
function getAccessForActionType(a: DocAction): AccessFn {
if (a[0] === 'UpdateRecord' || a[0] === 'BulkUpdateRecord') {
return (ps) => ps.update;
} else if (a[0] === 'RemoveRecord' || a[0] === 'BulkRemoveRecord') {
return (ps) => ps.delete;
} else if (a[0] === 'AddRecord' || a[0] === 'BulkAddRecord') {
return (ps) => ps.create;
} else {
return (ps) => ps.schemaEdit;
}
}
// Tweak an AccessFn so that it throws an exception if access is denied.
function denyIsFatal(fn: AccessFn): AccessFn {
return (ps) => {
const result = fn(ps);
if (result === 'deny') { throw new Error('access denied'); }
return result;
};
}
// A simple access function that returns the "read" permission.
function canRead(ps: PermissionSet<string>) {
return ps.read;
}